witesoxfan

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 27, 2007 -> 11:03 AM) I would be more than happy to take away that 2000 MVP from Giambi and give it to the 2nd place finisher, thus giving that man a 3rd MVP. not possible though

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Jul 27, 2007 -> 10:47 AM) Sox were 39-30 in games Frank Thomas started that year. He was hurt after 74 games or something like that. Then Magglio? Those are two guys that are 1.000 & .900 OPS guys. How good would Minnesota have been last year if Morneau and Mauer were out half the season? I think 82-80 with your two superstars off the team is kind of an indication of an underlying good team...the sort of team that with health and a few breaks might win the WS in a year or so. The Twins had a 13.5 game lead on September 20th. The Sox were never in it from like August on, and the Twins coasted to win the division.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 10:01 AM) You know why all of baseball feels that way, Canseco? Because Schilling is 1. More talented and successful than most people in baseball 2. A better communicator and 3. Because so many people in baseball are upset with him for speaking out against the steroids that they were on and are. Schilling's a bit of a b****, but I like him enough. So I take it the reason nobody hates Frank Thomas for the same reason they hate Schilling is #2. Schilling's a dick. Canseco admitted he used roids, sure, but he also is trying his best to clean up the game right now and rat out those that he also knows did it. So let's punish him for trying to clean the game up. And Palmeiro was punished for using steroids; a 10 game suspension, a tarnished career, and the loss of respect by the general public. That's punishment enough. He also doesn't seem to be considering the flip side in the whole debate; sure we can take away Canseco's MVP, but then Caminiti's would have to be taken away, perhaps IRod, Juan Gone, Giambi, and so on and so forth. It'd be a never ending battle and years and years of pages would have to be destroyed. So then what of the deadball era? Players then weren't playing with new baseballs every 6 pitches nor were they playing in parks where it was realistic to hit home runs to all parts of a ballpark. What about the 1968 season, should that be erased because the mound was so high that there was a ridiculous advantage towards the pitcher? You can't rewrite history; all you can do is discover the wrong and try to make it right. And that's what Jose Canseco is trying to do. Canseco also wants money, but if you don't want money, then you need to give me some because you have so much that you don't care for it anymore.

I didn't even know the Sox fielded a team anymore quite frankly. Good to see they can still win a game here or there.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 12:09 PM) We should be keeping Dye that's my opinion. We have a lot of guys having subpar 2007 seasons, but homer and RBI wise he is still at the top. Contreras needs to go adn we need a new bullpen. Dye is not the problem nor are Vazquez and Garland. Dye is part of the problem, and the team is not good. It needs to be rebuilt, and players need to be traded to do so. You aren't making this team better without first getting worse (or so the saying goes), and one of Vazquez and Garland needs to go. I'm not sure it really gets any simpler than that.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) The Sox will acquire Seth Smith in any deal involving the Rockies. so that's weird and out of nowhere...can I ask why

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 12:51 AM) If Poreda eventually made it as a 2006 version of Matt Thorton -- I'm talking dominant lefty setup man -- would people really be that pissed? I mean, I know Porcello was taken immediately afterwords, but I'd have to think that getting a great reliever with the 25th (?) overall pick is better than the 'expected value' of that pick. It's just an example, I know, but I hope he turns out better than Thornton. He's been good 1 year. I'd be fine with it so long as if he is traded at some point within the next 3 years that he has more value than to acquire an aged Roberto Alomar.

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 01:25 PM) I don't know exactly what his actual height is. I was assuming that he was his listed 5'11". If he's 5" 6" ...well....that's different. Tom Gordon is listed at 5'9". I'm just saying that's not the biggest issue. Even if he can never handle a 230 inning workload and he needs to be limited to 190 - that's ok as long as it's a very effective 190. Gordon is a mini-Oswalt; the stuff was there, cuz he can still get it up to 97 if he has to, and he has about the nastiest hook I've ever seen. He just didn't have the control nor I would venture to guess the secondary pitches to succeed in the majors; nor the durability. If Gio's hook is as good as Gordon - and Gordon's had to of been like an 80 - then he'll be good, and he'll be used, and I would guarantee it to you. He could be 5'3 and he'd be used. And I still don't think Gio's a lock to be a member of the White Sox organization next year.

Super Mario 3 was definitely the first game I beat before my dad. Funny part was that I thought I died at Bowser and my dad was just like, No, you beat him, look at the screen. And I kinda freaked out and danced a little. My roommate brought Griffeys back to school with him after Easter; we played an entire season in a month. We were the Indians and named our team entirely after the cast of Major League, except that we couldnt find enough names, so we started filling in names like "T. Guysdead" and stuff like that. It was pretty sweet.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) TIFWIW: If they get Hu for Dotel, and the Sox can't or won't get him and one other player for Dye, then I am going to be extremely disappointed.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 04:35 AM) I wonder if Drayton McLane will be playing sword vs. piece of celery with Biggio anytime soon. I call sword

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:20 PM) The size issue doesn't concern me but the command issue does. I don't think Pedro, Santana, Oswalt and some others are too big but command is a necessity. I've read people speculate that Gio's more like 5'6-5'8 than 5'10. His size is a huge concern to me. You are also talking about 3 of the best pitchers of the past decade. Gio has good stuff, but if you're comparing it to Oswalt, Santana, and Pedro, the conversation ends.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jul 24, 2007 -> 05:59 PM) I have a theory about Javy which I have had thoughts about posting, so I'll post and the rest of you can get pissed off. Javy pitches better when the pressure is off. His best years were in Montreal when many thought he was a potential #1 or #2. Montreal's last several season were spent looking up at the Braves in the standings while the Expos hovered around .500. Javy goes to high pressure New York, a big signing, and they want him gone after one year. Javy goes to Arizona, who was a good team, but not a real playoff contendor in 2005. Javy's worst starts are early in the year and except those couple of starts, has a good year. Javy comes to the White Sox a year removed from the World Series and seems have regular sixth inning meltdown. Javy in 2006 started the year a little shaking, but has come on strong since ... the White Sox have fallen out of the race. Here is my thought: Is Javy the type that thrives when there is no pressure. His best seasons were on .500 ish teams. Hopefully the White Sox have a playoff year in 2008 and Javy breaks the trend that I see. I am going to call your theory complete garbage. He pitched very well in April and May of last year, and he pitched well down the stretch until the Sox were eliminated. He was doing everything in his power to get the Sox back into the race; unfortunately for him, he received like 2 runs of support a game and was a sub .500 pitcher in the 2nd half. I think it was really just a matter of adjusting to the league and getting comfortable on a team for once. Javy went from Montreal to New York, and then New York to Arizona, and then Arizona to Chicago in the period of 3 seasons. This is the first time he's spent 2 years in the same place since 2002-2003. I love these types of threads too, BTW. I can't say I told you so until like September, but if he keeps this up, it will be fun.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) It would be ridiculous to keep sending him out there if he continued to pitch like he has in his 2 starts. Which is why you put him out there and see if he does keep blowing up. And if he averages 5 innings a start - which he's done in his two starts this year - he's not going to burn up a bullpen that's going to feature probably 4 more guys by the end of the year. If anything, he's going to help the club in that regard because more guys are going to see action out of the pen and the players themselves will decide who sinks and who swims.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 11:50 AM) good post....how many guys really are considered #1 starters? Hughes bailey, maybe gallardo, lincecum...theres nothing wrong with having the ceiling of a #3 starter....jon garland is a number 3, so is javy vazquez...i think wed all be thrilled if gio turns out to be a guy like that....is he gonna be a santana, peavy, type? i think we all knew the answer to that was no even before BP came out with anything...i for one would be very happy if gio becomes a guy who we can count on to give us 13-15 wins a year, which is fairly typical for a #3 on a good team... That's the point I don't think a lot of people understand. If they are saying Gio Gonzalez is going to be a 3 or a 4, they aren't saying the guy is going to suck or be a mediocre pitcher. Jon Garland and Javier Vazquez sure as hell aren't s***ty pitchers; in fact, they are very good pitchers. But there is no chance in hell you are going to even think about building a rotation, let alone an entire team, around Garland or Vazquez. If Gio Gonzalez were an ace prospect in the minors, he'd be 3-5 inches taller and he's exhibit much, much better control.

Pratt is ripping this thread apart. Preach on bro. QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 11:17 AM) Cardinals over Mets Cardinals over Tigers You do not understand the term "fluke" or "upset", do you? The Cardinals did not deserve to win that World Series; they just had it handed to them on a silver platter. The Padres were merely a decent team, the Mets had probably the worst starting in the entire playoffs, and the Tigers made 8 errors in 5 games. If the Cards HADN'T won that World Series, they would never have deserved to win one again. The Cardinals pulled off probably one of the luckiest World Series wins within the past 10 years; every team gets lucky, but not many teams win with that lessened level of talent period. It just goes to show that the entire MLB playoffs is not much more than a giant crapshoot (with certain things a team can do to improve their chances to win series), and all you can do is get there on a consistent basis and hope you can manage and luck your way to a World Series victory.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 10:30 AM) Most likely because the Sox have the starting pitching to be competitive next year. Why not wait and see how the team is doing next June before throwing in the towel? Regardless of whether they have the starting pitching, do they have the bullpen and offense necessary to compete with the Tigers, Indians, and Twins? I'm not sure they do. Even if Richar comes up and plays very well, the Sox still have SS, LF, CF, and RF that all need to be filled. Sweeney needs to get stronger or quicker on the inside pitch before he'll be able to come up (and neither of those may ever happen), Owens is never going to be anything more than a mediocre leadoff man at his best, and you can't build an outfield around Aaron Rowand. The Sox are in a very difficult position right now, and some killer changes need to be made; if they keep this particular core of offensive players together without trading one of Garland or Vazquez, then I think they are putting themselves back a year. The A's probably had the starting pitching to compete in the AL West in 2005 with Zito, Hudson, and Mulder, but rather than wait and see if he did or take the compensatory picks, Beane traded Mulder and Hudson for good size packages of players; the Mulder trade looks like a complete heist at this point having brought in Dan Haren, Kiko Calero, and Daric Barton; whereas the Hudson trade looks completely the opposite, as Charles Thomas, Juan Cruz, and Dan Meyer have done really nothing with the A's organization. That's the type of idea KW needs to take right now and run with it; maybe it means dealing Garland in the offseason when more suitors become available, or maybe it means trade him right now and capitalize on a team caving into his demands, I'm not sure. But if the Sox keep Buehrle, Garland, Vazquez, and Danks next year, the offense is gonna be bad and I'm not sure there's anyway it can be good without spending $110 million.

I work indoors. And it was still 102 degrees today. Felt nice, seeing as how it was 110 yesterday. I drink 100 ounces of water at work, and I urinate twice a day. That's just how much I sweat. Quite ridiculous, really. Cooking is fun, but when it gets that hot, it can be a major drag.

QUOTE(MurcieOne @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:02 AM) why? so you can hear Hawk go " and the 2-2.... GASSS HE GAWN OOOOOOO NELLLY! I would pay money to hear that. If I can get it for free, why I'll probably make love to my TV

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 01:45 AM) The only reason I watch is to see Jim "choke breath" Thome fail in every clutch situation because he's overpaid and his face is stupid. Rowand would have won the division last year; Thome just sucks

QUOTE(dasox24 @ Jul 24, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) Okay, so why not just wait till the offseason to trade him? If he's pitching that well, then his stats will much improve with the rest of the year to pitch. Therefore, it will make his value higher, right? Not if his numbers remain or get worse over the course of the next 2 and a half months or he gets injured. And aside from that, there will be plenty of left handed relievers available at that point; the Sox have the best pitching available in the entire major leagues right now if a team wants to make a run. Come the offseason, you will be looking at several other pitchers becoming available both on the free agent and trade markets, and he may very easily not look as good. I just don't think it makes a ton of sense to hang on to him when it's possible you'll be able to get a good player in return for him; obviously if you don't get the type of player you're looking for, you can hang on to him a while longer. I wouldn't keep him in the pen forever, just merely hang on to him until a team cracks, because with something that can be quite valuable and quite cheap like a reliever, someone will crack at a price such as their current 4th outfielder. If it's for a starting pitcher whose contract ends after next season and you're asking for their top prospect along with another stud prospect, the decision to turn the offer away becomes much, much easier.

QUOTE(dasox24 @ Jul 24, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) I don't expect to get much for Thornton. That's why I said we shouldn't trade him. I'd rather take a chance on him turning it around, than take a chance on some A-ball prospect that has a 5% chance of making it to the big leagues. It's not like Thornton's costing us a ton for the rest of the year, so I just don't see the harm in keeping him still ST next year, and then cutting ties if he continues to suck. You do bring up some great points about getting rid of him b/c of us not being able to contend for a few years, but I don't see how his trade value could get any lower from now 'till next March. He is pretty bad right now. He's still bringing heat, his control has not been terrible, and his HR and K ratios are just fine; without one dumbass pitch to Aaron Rowand and with a better defense, he's looking at an ERA in the 4's with a WHIP around 1.4; he can further limit his control, he could make it back down into the lower 4's with a better WHIP. Add to it that he is coming off a year where he was good, and you can trade Thornton for Pena, problem for problem, with the Sawks willing to give up Pena because they are tired of his game and want Thornton as a reliever because of the stuff he pitcher he could very easily be for them. Hell, I know it's not exactly legit, but if you take out 2.2 IP from his season - the outings from his 3 losses - his ERA is below 4, his WHIP is 1.33, and his K/9 is 7.8. That's how easy it is for a reliever to have their stats totally destroyed and why I don't think his value is really nearly as bad as you think it is right now.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jul 24, 2007 -> 09:20 AM) in addition its also extremely rare that a guy throws lefty, but bats righty.....it happens often that a guy will throw righty and bat lefty, but the reverse is very rare.....randy johnson is one and i think someone on the astros like jason lane or someone Rickey Henderson

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jul 24, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) Gio's going to be a 1 or 2... I'm calling it now. If him and DLS can pan out, we have a bright future for our rotation. I don't think there is any possible way that Gio can even be a #2. At his very best, he's probably a short Oliver Perez. Ridiculous stuff but he's not a guy you'll be able to count on from a game to game basis, and because he's 4-6 inches shorter, his ball is going to be flatter and it's going to get hit way harder. DLS and Josh Fields (if you still count him as a prospect) are probably the only two players in the minor league system that can become impact players, DLS at the very least an outstanding reliever and if he can develop another pitch and further develop his control, a possible 2 starter, and Fields can become a 30-40 homer a year guy with an OPS around .850-.950. That's really it. There are guys who can undoubtedly become very good players for the Sox in the coming years, such as Gio becoming a middle of the rotation starter, Floyd being a back of the rotation starter, Russell a good reliever, Sweeney a starter and good all around player in RF, Owens a speedy backup outfielder, Gonzalez a very nice all-purpose player, etc - but the minor league system definitely needs work all the same and another impact player or two getting added within the next 6 months would be really nice. And, not that I want them to lose, but getting a top 5-10 draft pick and adding an instant stud would be awesome too. The organization I like to use as an example is the DBacks; given, their scouting and development departments are a little better than the White Sox, but they went from winning the series in 01 to losing 111 games in 2004 and are back and ready to return to a potential division winning team in 2007 and beyond. If the Sox can make even a 4 year turn around just like that - and it's very possible if you trade every very good player who will not be with the team the next time they are contending in 4 years - then these doom and gloom scenarios are not going to be necessary. If no trades are made, then you can bring them up all you want to and they will probably become true because without some help, the future of the White Sox organization is looking very ugly.

QUOTE(CWSOX45 @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 06:00 PM) I really don't think the Mets are going to trade for Iguchi. They have Ruben Gotay, Damion Easley, AND now Marlon Anderson. The only way I see the Mets trading for Iguchi is if they basically get him for cheap. (Which I hope to god they don't.) There is no way they would give up a guy like Pelfrey or Milledge for Iguchi when they have that many options at 2B, that and Gotay is having a pretty good year. (Granted he's only had 107 at bats, but he's hitting .336.) And if you expect a guy like Pelfrey or Milledge, Minaya will never bring up the syllables ih, goo, and chee again. You won't get much, but the Sox should be able to get a guy that can help the club someday; really, that's all you can ask for out of Iguchi.